Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ammolite/archive1

Ammolite

Found this through a "what links here". Well-written, comprehensive and interesting. Rmhermen 15:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

• A sleeper. Support -- ALoan (Talk) 16:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Impressive. Support. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 16:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, with the proviso I know nothing about this so I don't know if it is missing anything. One thing I saw was inconsistent British and American spelling. Shouldn't it be consistent one way or the other? Or does Canada use the British spelling. Ex's: uncompromised and Aluminium, mixed with fossilized and pyritized, etc. - Taxman 19:48, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I can say in confidence that the article contains more information than any gemmological treatise, if one excludes the book produced by Korite International (which I suspect is not scholarly). I don't have the book, so I cannot use nor judge its content. But as you can see from the references I included, I've tried to collect all published data. As for the spelling discrepancies, that's my fault: I (a Canadian) was working with DanielCD's original material when I expanded the article, and tried to preserve his spellings. The one exception is aluminium, which is spelt the British way because that's its official IUPAC spelling (see Aluminium#Spelling). If you see any British spellings, please Americanize them. :) -- Hadal 03:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain for the moment - There are photos of the raw material and there's mention of processing it into finished products (such as jewelry) in the article I'd like to see some photos of the mineral either during (maybe some of the machinery or someone working with it) or after processing (like a stone set in an item of jewelry). I don't think this is enough for an objection, but it's holding my vote right now. slambo 20:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Since there is only one commercial supplier of the material, it'd be kind of tricky to get images of the processes—especially since they may consider some of it (e.g. the impregnation process) to be a trade secret. I might take up lapidary some day, but until then I can only offer what I have. I don't have any ammolite jewellery on hand, but as soon as I do I'll take a photo for the article. That won't likely happen soon or within this nomination period, and I regret that. I'll try asking Korite for an image; perhaps they'll oblige, since they seem keen on promoting their product through any avenue. -- Hadal 03:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I confess to writing most of this article, so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to support it (but if so, I do). I would however like to thank Rmhermen for nominating it, DanielCD for his solid start to the article, and for everyone's supportive feedback. I've expanded the article even further since the nomination, including more details on extraction (which will hopefully compensate for a lack of images concerning the process). Cheers, -- Hadal 06:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. slambo above raises a good point, although I don't believe images should be a reason for an article not to be featured (except in the case of grossly inappropriate or complete lack of images). Phils 08:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Hadal has done a great job again. Just a couple of comments. First the ironstone mentioned leads to an ill-defined article, maybe goethite or limonite concretions would be better - I'm not familiar with the geology of the area though. Second, if there is only one commercial supplier, then this is free advertizing - especially if featured. I assume Hadal and DanielCD aren't connected to this company ;-) -Vsmith 05:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I found a mention of "ironstone (siderite)" so perhaps that is the mineral? Rmhermen 01:59, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • After again looking over every source I used, I've replaced "ironstone" with siderite as that seems to be the only ironstone-type mineral (besides pyrite) mentioned. As for the "free advertising" angle: perhaps it is, but I'm in no way involved with the company. And honestly, a complete article on ammolite must mention Korite and its operations prominently. I did ask Korite if they'd donate images for the article, but as of writing they've not responded.-- Hadal 04:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This article, like all of his others are a parragon of encyclopaedic entry. Methylsoy 05:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support, a-stone-ashing article! Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)